Stay free, Bruce Springsteen
By Elizabeth Patterson (Benicia Mayor 2007-2020), January 26, 2026
Introductory Note: Dear Reader, if you are not familiar with Historic Jefferson Ridge, there is a brief description at the end of this editorial. The timeline for the following is uncertain – Santa Rosa project will take at least a year or two. The Benicia story has been going on for a long time and this is a phase that could end in bull dozing and grading by this year unless there is an appeal to the California Supreme Court.
– Elizabeth Patterson
>> Benicia declares it is a City of History with historic districts and landmarks including the State Capitol and Historic Arsenal.
Santa Rosa is debating development on land of its birthplace – Carrillo Adobe, a historic landmark on private land.
Benicia’s downtown is a State Registered Historic District, and the Historic Arsenal includes four districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The area is part of the Delta National Heritage Area and became a state historic landmark in 1935.
Santa Rosa like Benicia must approve housing in numbers that are adopted by each city and approved by the state. [Benicia officials approved housing numbers in excess of state requirements – by about 15% with most of the housing designated in two eastside census tracts].
Decedents of the Santa Rosa Carrillo family and Indigenous people are debating the scale of the project that risks paving over one of the most culturally rich pieces of land not yet developed.
The Carrillo site developer will submit formal plans after listening to the public testimony and the plans will trigger a study of the land’s historical resources and other environmental and traffic reviews. The study will identify mitigation measures to maintain the historic values and cultural resources.
In the early 2000s, Benicia officials approved a private development in the Arsenal Jefferson ridge historic district, citing no significant environmental impacts. Opponents sued and initiated a referendum. Developers refused further environmental review, leading the city council to reverse its decision.
A few years later, Benicia officials created a specific plan and Environmental Impact Report for the Historic Arsenal. The report was recirculated because it lacked an assessment of historic impacts, as required by the State Office of Historic Preservation. The state then mandated detailed mitigation measures to protect viewpoints, preserve historic significance, and maintain the district’s designation by the State and National Parks.
The state Department of Toxic and Substance Control also identified U.S. Army pollution in the lower arsenal to be cleaned up which stalled the certification of the EIR and the specific plan.
The Santa Rosa Carrillo developer is quoted saying they are “evaluating ways to address concerns about views” and that “a substantial portion of the site will remain free of buildings.”
The Jefferson Ridge development in Benicia Arsenal replaces historic views outlined in the City’s 1990 Conservation Plan with buildings that fill the district’s open space. From the 1860s Officers Quarters, the view is now dominated by a wall of the proposed buildings and parking.
While the Carrillo project works with Santa Rosa officials, historians, housing advocates, and Native Americans, the City of Benicia officials accepted the Keith Rogal Jefferson Ridge project as qualifying for staff approval. Arsenal Protectors testified at the Planning Commission citing the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan, summarizing the long list of mitigation measures and the adopted Historic Arsenal Conservation Plan.
The Arsenal Jefferson Ridge developer Keith Rogal has plenty of experience with historic properties since he is involved in the Sonoma project with historic buildings, wetlands, wildlife and open space. The county was sued on his inadequate environmental report. Rogal is currently in more litigation by protectors of historic values, wetlands and open space.
Benicia officials were unmoved by public requests to consider the history of the Jefferson ridge not be erased. The officials have been asked to consider layers of history that have some mystery to them and is a compelling place to be in the presence of and stand with the view sites mapped by the United States Army. [You may hear “we had no choice because of SB 35” – b.s].
The 1847 Arsenal is the first on the west coast. Has the most intact Civil War Era officers’ quarters in the United States (these structures remain, but the context of their being sited on the Jefferson Ridge is lost without the views of the Carquinez Strait as mapped by the Army). The historic infrastructure of paths and recreation for the officers will be bulldozed.
In fact, contrary to the Benicia Municipal Code stipulating the right to appeal staff decisions, the city officials returned the appeal fee and denied a hearing with city council.
Santa Rosa and Sonoma will consider the history, wetlands and open space and their decisions may not please all, but it will be a public process respecting the concerns of their historic resources.
To date the Protectors of the Arsenal are unsuccessful. They want the public to view Arsenal Jefferson Ridge as it appeared from the 1860s to 1964, in line with its status on the National Register of Historic Places and within the Delta National Heritage Area. However, the city and Rogal will proceed with their project ending preservation efforts and overriding these hopes unless halted by the California Supreme Court. It’s your history – will it be for future generations?
Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor 2007-2020
The Officers Row District on Jefferson Ridge in the Historic Benicia Arsenal is a well-defined Civil War era historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places and within the Delta National Heritage Area. This ridge was initially designated 1847 for an arsenal which is now our Clock Tower. It has a clear vantage point to watch, guard and if necessary, act against threats. It provided protection for 1850 gold rush manufacturing of dredgers and other mining needs.
The historic district exhibits a clear pattern of organization that displays military rank in the arrangement of the officer quarters, retains views of the Strait and sight lines between buildings that were instrumental to the operating a military arsenal, and incorporated parade grounds and exercise grounds in close proximity to the officers’ quarters.
These relationships are still visible today [it is uncertain for how long now], allowing the public to observe and appreciate the logic of the Army’s design for historic districts of this period. As evident from the Benicia Arsenal’s record of entry into the National Register of Historic Places, the relationship between individual structures that make up a historic district is what makes it identifiable as a district having historic preservation value. [Thus, a development that eliminates the relational features and that define an intact historic district and distinguish it from its individual parts would thereby eliminate the district itself – causing the loss of a unique historical structure].
The whole of the Arsenal consisted of approximately 2700 acres of which 235 or so were considered historic and designated by the State in 1935 as a California Landmark.
The Arsenal was a major player in many of the wars including the Civil War (to prevent gold being smuggled to the confederates), the attack on indigenous peoples, a major factor in WW I and WWII and supplied the munitions for the Tokyo raid. Tanks were cleaned on the lower arsenal streets with tetrachloroethene. Machine guns and other guns were repaired and reconditioned by as many an 1000 workers a day (mostly women). It was closed in 1964 without unexploded ordinance cleanup and other pollution except for the Nike missiles. There was no planning, no transition funds, no infrastructure upgrading – zero.
The city officials acted with little public advice. They acted in a manner that earned a law suit which was a major factor for the State Department of Parks and Recreation withdrawing from developing the historic part of the Arsenal as a state park. The city officials were willing partners with the industrial park investors allowing historic structures to be torn down, and new development inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. For instance, the oldest Army cemetery in the West is cut off from the public by pipelines; the first Army Hospital west of the Mississippi sold for use by Amports as headquarters.
And here we are: tourism for cultural and historic resources is popular and brings in revenues to communities. It does not have to be built. It is here. Many former industrial cities in Europe and the United States have rebuilt their economies on tourism. It is the fastest growing investment a community can make. The Arsenal – this district specifically – is in the Delta National Heritage Areaa which is managed by the Delta Protection Commission that receives an annual federal funding of $500,000 to implement the Management Plan with policies and programs for tourism for the cultural, historic and natural resource heritage of the area. But it as if Benicia officials eat their young.
CALL TO ACTION
There is a good chance the California Supreme Court would take the case because of the legal issues involved. This is a cultural resource issue not a housing CEQA issue.
Letters to the editor, to city officials are helpful.
Donations to 1000friendsphb.org are essential. You can donate on the web or send check to address listed. It has been expensive effort to protect the Historic Arsenal. We get our largest donations from San Francisco individuals and historic societies. Now there is city that knows the value of history.
By Terry Scott, Benicia City Councilmember, January 23, 2026
On January 14, The Bay Area Air District released revised guidelines for penalty fund grants after months of public hearings, discussions and significant personal lobbying efforts by Mayor Steve Young.
We’re very pleased to report the Air District has made significant modifications to its Local Community Benefits Fund Round 1 guidelines, creating special exemptions for Benicia in recognition of the extraordinary economic challenges facing the city following Valero’s refinery closure.
In these recently released Call for Project Guidelines, the Air District clearly states that “Valero Refining Company announced that it would close the Benicia refinery in 2026.” According to the Air District, “while the refinery closure will bring improvements in air quality, the sudden nature of the refinery closure will also create immediate adverse economic impacts, including job losses for refinery workers and loss of direct and indirect tax revenue for local government entities.”
“Due to the ongoing strain on Benicia’s community, civic, and organizational capacity resulting from the impending refinery closure, the Air District is making unprecedented exceptions for Catalyst Grant (up to $40 million) applications for Benicia.”
This Call for Projects requests project proposals from eligible applicants in Benicia and surrounding communities.
There are in total three Grant Levels including Catalyst, Opportunity and Seed. As noted the City will be applying for the largest funding which is the Catalyst Grant; process and programs proposed for the Catalyst Grant will be vetted most likely by the community Sustainability commission and the ISO oversight commission.
There will be ample opportunity for local non-profits to apply for Opportunity Grants of between $500,000 and $5 million, or Seed Grants of between $100,000-$200,000. These two grants have easier application requirements and ca be made directly to the District. Applications currently have a May 1 deadline, but Mayor Steve Young has requested that the deadline be extended to June 1. ( links at bottom)
Seed Grant Size is $100-200,000. Grant term up to 2 years and is open to 501c3 Non-profit, no Co-applicants.
Opportunity Grant size is $500,000-$5 million and the grant term is up to 3 years. Lead applicants must partner with at least 1 Co-Applicant(s)
Catalyst Grant size is $10-$40 million. Grant term is up to 5 years. Exemption: no co-applicant required. This will be the City application .
In short, the Air District has exempted Benicia from the traditional Catalyst Grant application process and approval timelines—a major win for the city.
According to Appendix C of the revised Round 1 guidelines, the Air District has made the following key changes specifically for Benicia:
“Partnerships: The partnership requirements outlined in Section 4.1 of the grant guidelines have been waived. Co-applicants will not be required as an element for the Catalyst Grant in Benicia, though applications demonstrating diverse community support will be prioritized.
These guideline changes represent a significant acknowledgment by the Air District of the unique and severe economic impact the Valero refinery closure has had on Benicia. By modifying their rules dramatically in favor of the city, the Air District has created a streamlined pathway for Benicia to access critical funding resources during this unprecedented transition period.
The modifications demonstrate the District’s understanding that Benicia’s situation requires an exceptional response, removing bureaucratic barriers that could delay the city’s access to funds needed to address immediate economic challenges and begin building a sustainable post-refinery future.
Clearly these are not unrestricted funds and they cannot be spent on salary increases.. However, we believe these rule changes provide the City with a significantly more latitude in building a comprehensive grant request that covers some traditional and non-traditional General Fund expenditures to help fill the loss of Valero Tax revenues.
Given this new understanding of Benicia ‘s situation , Mayor Young and I do not feel we need to ask the community to bus over to Oakland on 1/28 to deliver public comment.
Links: Please copy and paste link or visit the Baaqmd website.
Updated overarching guidelines: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/community-health/cio/documents/lcbf-r1-guidelines-pdf.pdf?rev=b30a07a3fa744577b5eaead937b8b3f4&sc_lang=en
Updated Call for Projects – Benicia: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/community-health/cio/documents/lcbf-r1–call-for-projects-benicia-and-surrounding-communities-pdf.pdf?rev=71b421ce010c4888975991286c2283a3&sc_lang=en
Terry Scott
Benicia City Councilmember
Editor: Former Benicia Mayor Jerry Hayes sent me the following email message: “Roger – I have grown increasingly concerned that our City Council is about to approve the issuance of building permits for Seeno’s Rose Estates project. I think the Council as well as the majority of our citizens are ill-informed about the ongoing hazard presented by the closed IT Toxic Waste Dump.”
By Jerry Hayes, Benicia Mayor, 1996-2000
Over 30 years ago, shortly after being elected to the Benicia City Council, I met with and was given friendly advice by our former mayor, Marilyn O’Rourke. She told me of her own, eight-year experience serving on the City Council. Perhaps Mayor O’Rourke’s greatest accomplishment was managing the closure of the IT class one toxic waste facility on Benicia’s northern border.
Mayor O’Rourke cautioned me that two issues, the Rose Drive dump and the IT toxic dump, would occupy most of my time and energy during my future tenure on the City Council. Boy, was her warning prophetic.
During my first term on the City Council, I spent countless hours meeting with Rose Drive residents and Department of Toxic Substances Control officials. I would have much rather spent my time and energy promoting ferry service for our community or working on the revitalization of our waterfront for the benefit of all our residents.
Rose Drive (Braito) Dump
The Rose Drive dump, also known historically as the Braito/Solano County Sanitary Landfill, began operations in the mid-1950s and accepted a mix of household waste, scrap metal, tannery waste, sewage sludge and industrial waste. The dump operated until 1979 when it was closed with the purchase of the property by the Southampton Company. Homes were built over the landfill area soon after closure, as part of the Southampton residential community.
In 1991, ground settling and the discovery of a soft black material beneath backyards of several homes revealed that buried waste remained under residential lots. Several homes were evacuated for cleanup. Methane leaking from the buried waste was ignited by a pilot light in one residence, resulting in a fire and evacuation. Investigations revealed that roughly 24,000 cubic yards of potentially hazardous waste had not been removed and remained buried near or beyond the original landfill boundaries.
What followed next was litigation, with residents suing the developer and the City of Benicia and former Mayor O’Rourke’s warning became a reality. By the time I took office as a council member in 1992, scores of Southampton residents had filed lawsuits against our city, and by the time I was sworn in as mayor in 1996, nearly 100 lawsuits had been filed asserting that the city, as well as the developer, had been negligent. Again, I found myself spending most of my time in countless meetings with attorneys who we had hired to defend our city and its citizens. My principal job as mayor was protecting the reputation of our city and the property values of every homeowner.
Historically, Braito landfill wasn’t regulated as a hazardous waste site, but the presence of wastes like tannery refuse raised concerns about contaminants in the soil or groundwater. Some residual wastes were found outside the closed landfill leading to long-term monitoring requirements. In 1998, a jury found negligence by the developers regarding homes built on the old landfill, though damages awarded were limited.
IT Class 1 Hazardous Waste Dump
Operations at the IT Panoche facility predated IT ownership. In 1968, the facility was permitted by the State of California as a Class 1 hazardous waste disposal site and received its first conditional land use permit from Solano County. Originally owned by J&J Disposal Company, the site was purchased by IT in 1974. This hazardous waste management facility covers 242 acres, of which 190 acres are permitted for disposal of hazardous waste, within a 2,350-acre parcel of land owned by IT.
Types of waste received
From 1970 to 1985, the facility annually received between 80,000 and 220,000 tons of hazardous waste for disposal. In 1986, the facility accepted 67,867 tons of waste for landfill disposal and approximately seven million gallons of liquid waste which were disposed in surface impoundment ponds. During 1985, more than 98% of all the hazardous wastes received at the facility were from outside Solano County. The specific types of hazardous waste handled by the facility included: acid and alkaline solutions; metal sludges; solvents; pesticide rinse water; PCB’s; paint sludge; laboratory wastes; heavy metal wastes; contaminated soils; asbestos; chloroform; tetrachlorethene; dichloropropane.
Violations and closure
From 1984 through 1988, state regulators issued numerous notices of violations (NOV) and cleanup and abatement (CAB) orders until the facility ceased operations in 1988. In 2002, IT Corporation declared bankruptcy. On May 1, 2004, the IT Environmental Liquidating Trust (ITELT) was established to oversee the long -term post closure, maintenance and upkeep of the site.
All closed Class 1 toxic waste dumps located in the state of California leak. The IT Panoche Benicia site has leaked in three directions, east, west and south.
The future Rose Estates
I am writing this rather lengthy treatise because it has been revealed that our city administration is about to issue building permits for a 1,050-home residential project to the Seeno Corporation to be built just south of Lake Herman Road, in the shadow of the closed IT toxic waste dump.
I stand adamantly opposed to this project for a variety of reasons. While Benicia deserves thoughtful, sustainable solutions to our housing needs, placing a large residential development adjacent to a closed Class 1 toxic waste dump, the IT Panoche site, is neither prudent nor responsible. Class 1 toxic waste facilities are designated for the disposal of the most hazardous industrial material. Although the IT Panoche site is officially closed, closure does not mean it is risk-free. Such sites require long-term monitoring because contaminants can migrate through soil, ground water or air over time. Building more than a thousand homes – likely housing several thousand residents including children and seniors – so close to a known toxic waste site exposes future residents to unnecessary and potentially irreversible health risks. No amount of landscaping, fencing or marketing language can change the basic reality: This location was once deemed appropriate for hazardous waste, not for neighborhoods, schools or parks.
Approving Rose Estates would shift environmental risk onto future homeowners and renters who do not fully understand the site’s history. This raises serious environmental justice issues. Residents should not be placed in harm’s way because land is cheaper or easier to develop near a contaminated area.
Health impacts from long-term exposure to toxic substances, such as increased cancer risk, respiratory illnesses, and developmental issues, often take years or decades to become evident. By then, the burden falls on families and the community, not on the developer. Even if current studies suggest the site is “safe,” conditions change. Earthquakes, flooding, erosion or infrastructure failure can all compromise containment systems. Who will be responsible if contamination is discovered decades from now? Will homeowners bear the costs or will Benicia taxpayers? Approving this project creates long-term liabilities for the City of Benicia, potentially far outweighing short-term economic or housing gains.
Allowing dense residential development next to a former Class 1 toxic waste dump sets a troubling precedent. It signals that Benicia is willing to lower its safety standards and gamble with public health to meet development goals. Once established, such a precedent becomes difficult to reverse.
A call for responsible decision making
Rejecting the Rose Estates proposal is not a rejection of housing; it is a commitment to smart, ethical and responsible planning. Benicia can and should pursue housing projects that do not place residents at risk or burden future generations with preventable health and environmental problems. City leaders have a duty to protect the community. In this case, the responsible choice is clear.
The rose estates project should not move forward.
Jerry Hayes is a former City Council Member (1992-1996) and Mayor of Benicia (1996-2000).
Rose Estates on the Benicia Independent
For current information from the City of Benicia, check out their ROSE ESTATES page. For larger image, just click on the map at right.
Prior to 2024, the City of Benicia conducted a North Study Area community visioning process – see the old web page.
You must be logged in to post a comment.